Meet the Staff: The Sketchbook
· Blog Home
· Profile
· MySpace
· Contact Us
· FAQ/TOS
Articles This Month
· My Holy Grails volume 1: Base products, bronzers, and blush
· Essentials
· Ramblings of the day
· This just won't do...
· Beauty Notes: Wishlist! (7.21.05)
· Nars Jagged Edge...finally
· Beauty Notes: Ladies, I present you with a dilemma...
· Beauty Notes: A phenomenological analysis of sensitive skin...
· !
· Beauty Notes: Urk... /// Classist tendencies of makeup...
· MAC Viva Glam V lipstick
· Beauty Notes: NARS Fall 2005
· Beauty Notes: Surfeit
· Help wanted...
· The Makeup Artist: Pat McGrath
· Beauty Notes: Givenchy Hot Couture
· Beauty Notes: Cheap Thrills! (8.1.05)
Archives
· Beauty Blog (2003-2004)
· Fashion Blog (archive)
· New Releases Blog (archive)
· Beauty Articles (archive)
· April 2005
· May 2005
· June 2005
· July 2005
· August 2005
· September 2005
· October 2005
· November 2005
· December 2005
· January 2006
· February 2006
· March 2006
· April 2006
· May 2006
· June 2006
· July 2006
· August 2006
· September 2006
· October 2006
· November 2006
· December 2006
· January 2007
· February 2007
· March 2007
· April 2007
· May 2007
· June 2007
· July 2007
· August 2007
· September 2007
· October 2007
· November 2007
· December 2007
· January 2008
· February 2008
· March 2008
· April 2008
· May 2008
Comments
· September 15, 2005 2:41 PM by
Dain
· August 29, 2005 7:45 AM by
Dain
· August 29, 2005 2:13 PM by
Colleen Shirazi
· August 30, 2005 3:46 PM by
Dain
· August 31, 2005 1:54 PM by
Colleen Shirazi
· August 22, 2005 3:16 PM by
Colleen Shirazi
· August 18, 2005 1:48 PM by
Colleen Shirazi
· August 18, 2005 1:24 PM by
Colleen Shirazi
· August 27, 2005 11:47 AM by
Dain
· August 27, 2005 2:48 PM by
Colleen Shirazi
· October 3, 2005 1:00 AM by
Scott Frankum
· April 26, 2006 7:50 PM by
queenaka
· October 11, 2006 3:44 PM by
Kenia
Recent blog posts:
Links
Barneys
refinery29
The Sartorialist
Perfume Shrine
Polyvore
The Fashioniste
The Powder Group
LA-Story.com
Dain's Literary Attempts
Colleen's Beading Blog
Colleen's Adult Acne Blog
The Beauty Blog Network
Eponym Blog Directory.
TBF Project:Blog
The Lipstick Page Forums Beauty & Fashion Blog: August 2005
My Holy Grails volume 1: Base products, bronzers, and blush
Posted by Raphaelle, Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:53 AM (Eastern)
This one was bound to be short. I don't wear foundation and I'm not picky about powder and concealer. So what's left? Technically, all that's left is are base products of which I only use eyeshadow base. And that's why I added bronzers and blush to base products.
MAC paints were created as cream shadows but they turned out to make excellent bases. Once dry, they wear better than anything else I've tried. They do crease on me every so often but not before I've worn them for 12 hours. Bare Canvas is a just a smidge lighter than my skin (NC25-NC30) and has the tiniest amount of shimmer. On its own, it just brightens up and evens out the eye area without the look of makeup. It's under eyeshadow that it shows its true value though. It helps even the greasiest of cream shadows stay put but that's not what makes Bare Canvas so fantastic. Bare Canvas is my holy grail eyeshadow base because it does not alter colours at all. Anything I put on top of it will look exactly like it would have applied directly to my skin. What more could I ask?
For the longest time, I thought I couldn't wear bronzers. Even though I'm an NC (so on the yellow) side, I have a lot of pink in my skin. When I tan, I get a definite reddish tint. Most bronzers have an orange or yellow undertone. At best, this looks unnatural on my skin. At worst, it looks like dirt. Enter MAC's bronzing sticks, sadly a limited edition product. Of the three colours, one was absolutely perfect: Rose d'Or. The name pretty much says it. Rose d'Or balances pretty much equal parts of rose and bronze. It's not too dark for light skin but would give a lovely glow to darker skin. The shimmer seems like a bit much in the tube but is actually a beautiful glow. The creamy texture is a dream to apply and blend. I can't vouch for staying power but that's not something I look for in my bronzers and blushes.
Benefit Dandelion doesn't look like much. It's just a sheer light neutral pink. But brush it on and poof! I look healthy! It doesn't look like I'm wearing any makeup, my face just looks brighter. If I apply more, I can get the pink to come out a bit for a more "makeupy" look but Dandelion is at its best as a face brightener. Application is foolproof thanks to the sheerness of the powder. Now, Benefit isn't the only company making a sheer pink powder blush. MAC Angel is pretty much identical for instance and Colleen gave more examples of such a blush in her post. So why is Dandelion my grail? I confess it's just a question of packaging. I love MAC's sleek packaging but I already have so much of it in my collection and so many companies package their products in black. Dandelion comes in a cute little box with the brush perfectly fitted in there. And it's a decent brush too. Works just fine for the powder. I've travelled a lot with this box in my cosmetics bag and never has it opened. My beloved Dandelion is still in top form.
Next: Eyeshadow...
Essentials
Posted by Colleen Shirazi, Sunday, August 28, 2005 5:29 PM (Eastern)
What really are those beauty essentials? Every cosmetic manufacturer seems to claim now that their product is a "go-to" beauty item. But is it?
For some time I have noticed on the forums, that everyone seems to own and frequently use one of those "blackened purple" eyepencils or liners.
Dain's post on Kevyn Aucoin (scroll down to "Prescriptives Softlining Pencil in Fig") rather sealed this impression, that this pencil had already replaced the dark brown or black eyeliner that was the "go-to" of yore.
I forget which entered my consciousness first, Audrey's MAC Permaplum or JennyB's Chanel Violet Smoke, but you might could do with a super dark, violet pencil or liner. Mine is the Permaplum (the Nars Babylon duo has something similar in powder shadow form).
Next up might be something like a sheer lipstick. (I know, I can hear Dain banging her head against the wall...hear me out.) Not sheer as in "why bother"; I am in complete agreement about that. I myself detest products that are sheer for the sake of sheer, that force you to pile on, scrape off product and then apply, or apply over a base.
But the sheer lipstick, is perhaps an evolved form of the "your lips but better" lipsticks that were the "go-to" before.
Hence, MAC Sophisto or Viva Glam V, or a very pigmented gloss like the Diane von Furstenberg Lipgloss Duet; something like that.
Then there is always the clear pink blush...MAC Angel, Nars Desire, Cargo Catalina. Here I almost hesitated because I wear my MAC Blushbaby as often as I do my Cargo Catalina, if not slightly more so. But there's no denying the various brands of pink...plain, clear, innocent pink...that seem to universally flatter.
The signature perfume is key, although that is much harder to generalize about. I can admit that my sig scent, Givenchy Organza, was embarrassingly easy for me to find. And before that, I would have been happy with Chanel No. 5; that is, before I developed a bad allergy to it.
Why Organza? It's not too sweet. But it is sweet. It's floral, but more than floral. It's relatively inexpensive and readily available, yet it's not ubiquitous. I never smell it on anyone else.
It's complex...not broodingly so (like my GF Ferre Lei/Her), yet womanly more than girly. It lasts all day in the EDP form. It has a bottle that is, get this, easy to use. That carved gown design...your thumb just fits into the waistline while you pop the golden top off...and the curl of the golden top, even that molds to the thumb of your other hand.
It's more than those factors, of course. I've come to believe that a signature scent becomes either more of a signature (if such a thing were possible) or less and less so, the more that you wear it.
Here there is a subtle entwining of memory with scent. This is the perfume I was wearing when I... (fill in the blank here) It's not conscious.
Oh well, I have to go now. Thanks for reading!
4 comment(s)
Post a comment (NO SPAM)
Permalink
. del.icio.us
. Stumble
|
August 29, 2005 7:45 AM, Dain said...
Ohh... I don't object to sheer lipsticks objectively. They're lovely things, especially when MAC Lustres are involved. It's more the superabundance that I object to, the inability for a woman to find a "normal" lipstick that's as nice. August 29, 2005 2:13 PM, Colleen Shirazi said...
What irks me is the "why bother" sheer...where a lack of pigmentation passes for sheer. Okay it is sheer, but then there's nothing else to it. August 30, 2005 3:46 PM, Dain said...
Hey, the first purple-grey liner! It is Purple Heart, yeah? August 31, 2005 1:54 PM, Colleen Shirazi said...
That would be interesting... True, Purple Heart was the first fusion of grey and purple, with shimmer, that I can remember. |
Permalink
. del.icio.us
. Stumble
Ramblings of the day
Posted by Colleen Shirazi, Friday, August 26, 2005 7:51 PM (Eastern)
A few quick, meaningless ramblings here....
I've almost UEU'd my MAC Viva Glam V lipstick. It is down to that particular sliver...the one that happens right before you actually use up the thing. I should mention that I don't use lip brushes, so I don't dig out the stub that's left once it's worn down to the metal. The first time it becomes uncomfortable to use, I consider it UEU'd.
My plan is to start using MAC Sophisto next...and then Hamlet for a few months lol In some odd, lipstick-junkie way, I'm tempted not to repurchase VGV, to try something else instead. But I know that I've fallen in love with VGV. A repurchase is inevitable. I'd like to UEU Sophisto...I like Sophisto. After that though, I think I will make VGV my one and only lipstick, my signature lipstick, the lipstick.
Mmmm...I've replaced my lipstick case. I like the Thai ones. I got a new one from Chinatown recently...they had Thai silk everything in that shop, from passport cases to jewelry rolls to this, that and the other (I didn't have time to look through everything, unfortunately). I got two lipstick cases: a beautiful deep orange-toned red one, and an off-blue one. I was going to keep the red one and give the blue one to my daughter. As soon as she saw them though, she decided the red one was hers, so I'm using the blue one.
Finally figured out what to do with MAC Heirloom Eye Kohl, or why it never worked for me before. I have to wear it with green, grey, or blue eye colors. That is where it works its magic. It's tranformative there, it adds something that you don't see, but suddenly green eyes look greener. Fascinating....
Thanks for reading!
This just won't do...
Posted by Dain, Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:37 PM (Eastern)
As much as I'd like to give you a nice, informative blog every day, I simply cannot. I have eight hours of work a day, and though it's good pay, I can see why people do not teach eight straight hours a day, but rather a mere four hours (and college professors, usually just a single class per day). That much brain use, it simply kills you. Even a high-paying job of pencil-pushing is plenty of brainless work. It is true that wracking of your brains for obscure vocabulary and even obscurer grammar (may vs. might and other conditional modals?) isn't particularly creative or active thinking, but it's still constant thinking. [frowns] It is much like how I feel more tired at the end of a school day at college than ever I did in high school (though I easily had three times as many classes then). Thinking is exhausting, and unless it's the intense, epiphanal, so-interesting-you're-gonna-burst kind of thinking, it's not particularly exhilarating. 95% brain use is a ridiculous thing to ask from an American.
So much for complaints. I'm hoping it explains, in part, why I haven't been blogging with any regularity, however much I'd like to. But this is the last week, and though school is going to take a lot of time too, it's somehow not the same. In any case, I have a few articles planned. a blush how-to, a description of my preferred fall look, Jeanine Lobell and François Nars, Serge Lutens (at last!), Avéne skincare, my fall "capsule wardrobe", an article on boho chic (not a positive one, I can tell you...), among others. So that will be forthcoming, but until then, you'll have to bear with me.
Labels: administrative
Beauty Notes: Wishlist! (7.21.05)
Posted by Dain, Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:32 PM (Eastern)
Well, well... it's time for fall, and I'm yearning to be back at school. And I'd like a handful of things to set me nicely on my way. Clé de Peau palette III: A hefty investment at $95, and yet, somehow I wonder whether this is not worth it. The products within are generously sized, and of unbelievably superb quality—two qualities that are rarer than you might think. In a way, this $95 purchase would eliminate all other purchases, save for face products, as it contains three beautiful eyeshadows, a lipstick, and a lip gloss all together. A single, neat purchase of everything you'd need, an instant update. I love the simplicity of it. All three palettes are gorgeous, and truly, I desire them all, but it was III that caught my eye. The main shadow is a lustrous lime, the second a pretty but substantial lilac, and the last a sort of charcoal-brown with lavender undertones (reminds me of MAC Moth Brown), all shimmery—simply gorgeous on my dark brown eyes. The lipstick is a pinky-purple shimmer, the gloss a fuschia. I can't do them justice. I know I said I'd do liners-without-much-shadow thing with rich, intense lips for fall, but this is so exquisite that I may just have to eat my words.
Serge Lutens Chergui: I sniffed Daim Blond, and I thought, "How gorgeous is a soft leather? How wise, how strong, but warm?" But Daim Blond is a little too elusive, and I wanted, but did not know I wanted, something with more substance. Thus, Chergui. How splendid is this? I've been searching, rather vaguely, for a fragrance full of wisdom, a sophistication born of a union of taste and intelligence, though it remains debateable what exactly wisdom would smell like. In my mind, I thought inevitably of Yale—grand, intelligent, and a little pretension, even if it is richly deserved. But most importantly, the warmth of college dorm life, the vibrancy of life and passion, that rarefied aura of possibility. Chergui is perfect: Gothic architecture, foliage, dusty libraries, tobacco and whiskey, leather armchairs, coffee, and the sagacity of iris and rose, and the sweet scent of youthful possibility (honey), to add warmth to what is otherwise an imposing fortress of the learnings of millenia. It makes me think of the juxtaposition of opposites, and I am glad it does so without vulgarity. Chergui is simply splendour, bottled.
Actually, that is enough for me. I am content with my haircare, I am content with my skincare, and that covers makeup and fragrance, for me. I rather want clothes, this season.
Image courtesy of http://www.salons-shiseido.com/.
Labels: beauty notes, cle de peau, serge lutens, wishlist
1 comment(s)
Post a comment (NO SPAM)
Permalink
. del.icio.us
. Stumble
|
August 22, 2005 3:16 PM, Colleen Shirazi said...
Both sound fabulous. I think these are good choices and you will wear them well. |
Permalink
. del.icio.us
. Stumble
Nars Jagged Edge...finally
Posted by Colleen Shirazi, Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:41 PM (Eastern)
I too looked around for the name of the Nars fall collection described in excellent detail here: NARS Fall 2005. At the time the name did not exist, not even on the Nars website.
Apparently it is the Jagged Edge collection.
Image courtesy Sephora.com
Beauty Notes: Ladies, I present you with a dilemma...
Posted by Dain, Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:03 AM (Eastern)
(And apologies to all non-ladies in the audience.)
Actually, this is a poor dilemma to lay before your feet. I have a $85 gift card to Sephora, and it beats me, whatever am I going to buy? I can't think of anything that I really, really want, except to repurchase NARS Key Largo, and maybe a couple of Dior lipglosses. But this is a vague desire, given that I don't wear brown eyeshadow too often, and lipcolors aren't a major issue for me the way everything else seems to be. If only Sephora sold Stephane Marais, I'd buy Perfect Concealers unto posterity. I'm torn, should I buy what I've always wanted but never got around to buying? Should I make sensible, useful purchases (like brushes)? Or should I buy something frivolous and fabulous that I'd never be able to justify elsewise?
Any and all suggestions are welcome!
P.S. I am leaning towards the frivolous and fabulous. (D.C.)
P.P.S. Such prodigious luck! And now, $50 for Saks Fifth Avenue. I think maybe one of those LE palettes from Clé de Peau, otherwise horrendously priced at $95, but very reasonable at $45. So gorgeous, I wish I could have all of them.
Labels: beauty notes, hauling
1 comment(s)
Post a comment (NO SPAM)
Permalink
. del.icio.us
. Stumble
|
August 18, 2005 1:48 PM, Colleen Shirazi said...
Well, you already know what I'm going to say. :) |
Permalink
. del.icio.us
. Stumble
Beauty Notes: A phenomenological analysis of sensitive skin...
Posted by Dain, Wednesday, August 17, 2005 5:47 PM (Eastern)
I have read of late, that as many as 90% of women either need "sensitive skin" skincare or believe themselves to have sensitive skin (June/July French Vogue, actually). I find these numbers baffling. Surely not... 90%? And then, I thought, perhaps it is our definition of what "sensitive skin" really means that has shifted.
Sensitive skin, in the clinical sense, is skin that responds readily to irritants, physical or chemical. It may suffer from rosacea. Scrubs may leave it red and raw. Botanical ingredients may induce puffiness or rashes. And fuggedabout AHAs. You may have any or all of these symptoms, the point is that your skin is reactive, and delicate. Mine does not mind physical irritants, but it has some allergies to botanicals (calendula, pineapple, almond meal), and loathes AHAs with a passion. It is, however, not unduly sensitive, except when indoor heating and icy winds become exceptionally cruel. It is really only slightly sensitive. I can live with my sensitivity.
But I have come to realize that there is another definition of sensitivity on the rise. As skincare technology becomes more advanced, it also becomes increasingly invasive. The physiological structure is not as malleable as our buying habits, and as more and more potent ingredients are laced into your favored creams and balms and serums and... All I am saying is, overkill is inevitable. We like our big guns, even if we are slathering on toxic cocktails on our face with abandon, but only think of birth control patches (and I have read that if you rub a clove of garlic on even the tough skin of your foot, you will eventually be able to taste in your mouth), if contact alone can effect such profound changes, then just imagine how absorptive skin can be.
So, many of us, have developed sensitive skin, like battle wounds (except for us, the enemy is not snipers perched atop a ruined cityscape, but rather the overharsh or overdone cocktails of multiglycolic/ascorbic acid/retinoid/copper peptides/sea plankton extracts/kinerase/kojic acid/silicone powders/etc/etc). The skin is not only the largest organ of the body, but like the others, is fine-tuned by millions of years of evolution. It can misbehave, of course, but for the most part, it takes care of itself. Respect it, and care for it, and your skin will serve you well. Make it suffer the consequences of your paranoias regarding acne and aging, and it will only go grumpy, like the surly teenager of hyperactive, pushy parents; your skin is only going to resent your interference. I must be harsh: 90% of skins do not deserve punishment, and what is a punishment if not a cocktail of acids? If you are worried about acne or aging, do not take it out on your skin.
Of course, the power ingredients have their use, and in moderation, the effects are remarkable. Acids slough and brighten, lighteners even the tone, hydrators plump the skin, silicones impart a smooth and velvety texture, disinfectants kill acne bacteria. All good things. But, as any dermatologist will tell you, lower concentrations, and gradual change, will actually produce the most dramatic effects. Higher concentrations are for more extreme cases, and while the effects will be immediate and more enhanced, than with the lower concentrations, you have to keep in mind that it is a violent measure, in that your skin must cope with higher concentrations of things that, in small doses, are often beneficial, but in heavy doses, are toxic.
Just consider, for example, benzoyl peroxide, a common and proven acne-fighting ingredient. It is a remarkable disinfectant, i.e. it kills the P. acnes bacteria the way Lysol disinfects your toilet. But it is also inimicable to the living skin, and even low concentrations can severely dry the skin. And are low concentrations available? The only 2.5% mass-market product I know of is from Neutrogena (Paula Begoun has one too), most are generally 10%. 10%. 2.5% is harsh. So when your skin becomes red and irritated and cantankerous, are you suprised? Are your surprised when the weakened skin becomes increasingly more susceptible to acne, when it becomes to go into hyperactivity, overproduction of oil, to compensate for the severe drying effects of your PTR 10% Benzoyl Peroxide Gel? God, who uses that? Someone who needs the skincare equivalent of a nuclear bomb, basically, but if total annihilation is not on your agenda, ease up on your arsenal.
It is not that these ingredients are evil, but a little goes a long way, and you may not need as much as you think. Just be patient; I find that in fact the best skincare works its magic over a month, rather than in a night. By that point, that skincare has nurtured your skin so well that it is perfectly capable of battling acne and aging both, without anything too big and fancy getting in its way. It is true that everyone is genetically predisposed as far as the self-maintenance of her skin is concerned, but that is why there are so many products for us to sample, so that the right combination of products, at the appropriate strength, brings us closer to harmony. There is no magical formula, and no magical products (I've tried a lot of so-called "miracle" products, from La Mer to SK-II to Decléor, and I can safely say that I've experienced only one inexplicably miracle product, Biotherm Biosensitive Concentrate). In the event that a problem does occur (i.e. a pimple, puffy eyes, etc,), you can treat it, but your primary goal should be maintenance, not treatment. We are not, as previously mentioned, not trying to punish your skin. Care for it so that it functions at its best.
A simple idea, though difficult to effect. In theory, you might just run home to rub your face with sand, and slather on Crisco with abandon, and hide under the sheets to avoid the sun. There is no reason in the world to shun the best that the industry has to offer, whether you like the latest in dermatological wonderchemicals or the latest fad in botanical extracts, the most ornate and expensive of lines or spartan appeal of drugstore offerings... whatever. It's up to you. The important thing is to choose products that your skin likes and you like, without suffering under any delusions of what the either of you need and of what the product itself has to offer. Choosing skincare, is like choosing any other thing in life, the better you know yourself, the more effortless and perfect it is. "Miracle worker" is not a realistic goal, whether it be face creams or relationship therapy or diets or books or... does anyone get the oddest feeling that women are substantially more susceptible to the "savior by means of retail therapy" syndrome. Humph. I suppose that's plenty obvious.
In any case, a great product is one that is effective but gentle, not prohibitively expensive or prohibitively difficult to use, and makes you feel good. It may be the copy, the packaging, the smell, the elegant texture, the expense you've invested in it, and so on. Cosmetics should be about being happy, about celebrating yourself, not punishing yourself for being "wrong". "Wrong"? Aye. You know as well as I, there are a million ways for a woman to be "wrong". The way I see it, the miracle is your skin, the biological processes, the imprint of all the great moments of life, the evolutionary miracle. Not a mere century of tinkering with rude chemicals and floral extracts. (Unless of course, you have chronic skin problems, in which case, ignore everything and see a doctor.)
As for me? It seems my attitude towards skincare is much like how I feel about men these days. As long as they're not irritating, and fundamentally good, and intelligently constructed, I feel like I can get along with any and all. I'm not looking for committment.
Labels: beauty notes, skin
!
Posted by Dain, Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:23 PM (Eastern)
There is one thing to be said for the old ways of paper and pen—you can't lose the damn thing by your computer "logging out". Alas, a longish posts on my experimenation with Avéne skincare has been lost, and I am too disgruntled by it to rewrite it. Perhaps some other day. What a bother.
Labels: administrative
Beauty Notes: Urk... /// Classist tendencies of makeup...
Posted by Dain, Monday, August 15, 2005 8:42 PM (Eastern)
My family has moved, to the lesser known town of Billerica, albeit only temporarily until the new house is made handicap friendly. I haven't had regular internet access for a week, which is tantamount to barbarism, as far as I'm concerned. In two weeks, the same phenomenon should occur, as I'll be returning to school (in all likelihood I shan't be able to post as regularly). Just a heads up on the schedule of the blog.
A mere hop, skip, and a jump away is Lowell (yes, the Lowell of the mills and Cambodian ethnic ghetto). There is a Wal-Mart. No such institution is allowed anywhere near the hallowed picket-fence universe of Lexington, and my brother, whose working memory only extends so far, was, in a word, put out. Lexington is the sort of town that erects such bourgeois soul-leeching boutiques as Jasmine Sola (a very cheap version of Kitson, basically), but never a Wal-Mart. My brother was irritated by the ostensibly "poor people" workings of the place. I probably should have slapped him, I suppose, because a place that is dead cheap is just simply brilliant, no matter the story (and we are still in suburban Boston). But I was too busy perusing the makeup. Of course.
Makeup, like many other things that can be bought, is classist. I looked at an eyeshadow trio by NYC Cosmetics, something very benign and pretty like a lilac, dark taupe, and vanilla (I think). I realized that naught but the very finest in pressed eye powders and the softest blue squirrel have touched my skin in... years. Which may not seem very long, but it is, when you consider just how rapid the turnover of the years is in the fashion industry—and consequently, the beauty industry. Is the difference really so great, between $3 eyeshadow and $30 eyeshadow? In a word, yes. You pay for superior colors, richer pigment, silkier textures, and long-lasting shadows. The distinction is vivid enough for me, but does it matter to other women?
It should, I suppose. But the difference between a MAC eyeshadow and a Dior eyeshadow is not vast, even from my point of view. And yet, I will say that I do not generally buy MAC eyeshadows, unless it is for a truly unique color. I have been frustrated too many times by chalky and rough MAC shadows—yes, it does happen. "Satin Taupe", would be one such example. A huge mistake, that one. Dior, at the pinnacle of shadowage, never disappoints, insofar as quality is concerned. Even my favored brand, NARS, can deliver inconsistently. This is just a matter of different pigments, of different sizes and material, acting differently.
But why...?
There was a lovely quartet by Cover Girl, the aptly named Crystal Waters. I haven't tried Cover Girl eyeshadows in years, not since I was 14 or so. The quality was not half bad, as I recall. It varied. The colors in Crystal Waters are gorgeous, and I could only think it a pity that I would never actually buy them, though I would in a heartbeat if NARS made them. Such is the way of things. It is not a label thing, the way that much of my highjinks with skincare are; eyeshadows have a sort of fixed objective quality, unlike the prevarications of skincare. I would be delighted if Cover Girl were at the same quality level of Dior, but low-quality eyeshadows I simply cannot abide. [shrugs] That is the way things are... I have been buying NARS duos for years, and I will continue to do so (Dior has superb, and absolutely unfailingly consistent, quality, but quints are hard to buy—large investment, and you're in for a lot of colors). Perhaps it has become something of an obsession, particularly since it takes a good many years to use up an eyeshadow (the higher the quality, the longer it takes), but I don't consider it a sensible matter. I've yelled at myself, but I can feel the pricks of acquisitiveness rise with every new collection. I'm resigned to the fact that I have become a collector of these eyeshadows.
On the upside, I experimented with L'Oréal Endless lipsticks. They're lovely. I want to own all of them. Rich pigment (I am so SICK of sheers and glosses these days), and in a rose-scented (classic L'Oréal) lightweight texture, not like the gloppy cream lipsticks of five years ago. Not to mention, they are in very presentable frosted gold tubes. I just want them all. Crimson Joy (a bright red, perhaps a little too bright for me), Fired Up (a deep browned sort of red worthy of Josie), Real Raisin (a creamy mauve, a balance 'tween the powers of rose and plum), Plum Perfect (an amazing color, like silver sparkle laced raspberry), Fearless Fuschia (rich magenta)... etc., etc. I also took a gander at Rimmel Bordeaux, a deep-seated garnet shimmer over a dark red—it's a coolish blue-toned red, in that it's got something purplish going on, but no tendency to fuschia, which is near unbelievable, amongst reds, particularly blue-toned reds.
For a moment, as I looked at Rimmel and NYC and Maybelline and Revlon and Cover Girl and L'Oéal, I thought, "What would it be like to be content with only this? To have six lipsticks, ill-chosen, a bottle of liquid foundation applied like a mask, black eyeliner, a box of brown shadows, some dusty rose blush?" It would be so simple, like some purer vision of minimalism, a state of innocence in the "buying o' crap". Quite a different vision from the obsessive, overanalyzed, preciousness of how I approach cosmetics. And I stood there, apologizing to the carts of any number of Middle Americans (I know no other way to describe them), in my subdued accent that can be indentified only as quasi-Anglo Ivy-League WASP, as a tantalizing picture of a pre-Lapsidarian paradise swam before my eyes. Those lipsticks would probably be dirty, caked with powder from a burst compact in the dark interiors of some handbag. A little smushed, warm in the August heat, without reverence. They would be stupendously boring colors. Chosen without precision, refinement, subtlety, but a few minutes of surreptitious peering in CVS. They would probably smell a little rancid. The vision vanished. The lipstick in my bag is no "noble savage" (shades of Jean Jacques Rousseau), it is the fabulous, extravagant, and ostentatious YSL Rouge Pure Shine No. 3, with its glossy, peach-scented berry hue, assidously polished to remove smears from its gilt cage of logo-emblazoned glory. I yearned for the purity of the "noble savage", but I knew then it was only the condescension of humility, I am the jaded, seen-it-all courtier who faces a little guilt when disparity stares her full in the face, and the sophistication of her world is exposed as all too Baroque and affected. The fact remained, I would never trade in my NARS duos for Cover Girl—never, no way—I can't even imagine owning less than three of them (at a modest $90: lesser stashes could be built around $90). It is a... err... good thing, I suppose, that I have the discretion to recognize quality when I see it, and the ascetism of the "noble savage" is merely an affectation, entirely meaningless, and probably not advisable, as far as taste goes. For a moment, I was seduced by the sway of a different persona (for, like the makeup you wear on your face, the stash you own is reflective of the type of person you are), but I know that I am of a certain type: a connoisseur of the most beautiful things in the world (i.e. highly elitist cultured tastes). It sets my teeth on edge to say so, but 'twere useless to pretend otherwise. We are all who we are, right?
As a side note: One lady was staring at the backsides of two Neutrogena cleansers with peculiar intensity. As I have been in such a situation many a time (several times a week), I felt compelled to tell her, "That one, if you want acne-proofing. That one, if you merely want a strong SLS-lather that strips like a demon," but I felt shy approaching a stranger thus, and said nothing, even if the decision seemed as automatic and clear as the turning on of a lightbulb.
Labels: beauty notes, philosophy
4 comment(s)
Post a comment (NO SPAM)
Permalink
. del.icio.us
. Stumble
|
August 18, 2005 1:24 PM, Colleen Shirazi said...
Well...it's a phase. August 27, 2005 11:47 AM, Dain said...
It's not really necessarily a function of cheap makeup, I suppose. You can do that with Estée Lauder and Lancôme. I suppose I mean more the complete lack of the obsessive tendency that, say, you or I or anyone visiting this site will possess. We notice things such as color and texture, but what if you didn't? What if you didn't care at all? I'm not talking about limitations or choice; not how much money, but sheer lack of interest (indeed, having money of my own makes me more paranoid about spending it, but since it's spending money, not saving money, I suppose I'm just being obsessive). I dunno. It's somehow appealing to imagine a world in which I just thought of cosmetics as stuff I own, not... err... a unhealthily large portion of my waking life. How I feel towards cars, say. August 27, 2005 2:48 PM, Colleen Shirazi said...
Yeah...I think we suit each other well. Your taste is really very good, and interesting. I think you will always be able to pick out what's good, in whatever milieu. October 3, 2005 1:00 AM, Scott Frankum said...
Make Up Tips: The Economics of Lipstick |
Permalink
. del.icio.us
. Stumble
MAC Viva Glam V lipstick
Posted by Colleen Shirazi, Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:39 AM (Eastern)
Ahhhhh...this has become my favorite lipstick.
Why this lipstick, above and beyond all others? It's probably not the greatest lipstick. And yet...I've been UEU'ing it (that means using it up). I wear it every day now. And I'm still not sick of it; I never get bored with it.
I have a few other lipsticks to play around with--MAC Sophisto, Neutrogena MoistureShine tinted lip balms in Sunny and Warm--all highly recommended. The lip balms, particularly, are useful because they have SPF 20.
Sophisto is technically the prettier, certainly the more universal of the two shades. Yet it is Viva Glam V that I consider to be "my" lipstick...my signature.
VGV is too warm for those with truly cool coloring (unlike, say, that Sophisto). It's too sheer for those who seek color in their lipstick. It was fairly roundly dissed when it came out...too warm, too sheer, not enough color, and so on.
So why the appeal to me...there are the practical factors. VGV is part of MAC's Viva Glam fundraising product series. 100% of the profits on the sales of these products, goes toward AIDS research.
Aside from that...the pleasant feeling of buying and wearing a fundraiser...it also means that MAC will never discontinue VGV.
There is the Lustre formula. It's highly moisturizing, and, for a sheer, it lasts well.
The base color is rose...neutral rose. It's not brown enough to look brown or muddy, but it's more neutral than true rose would be.
What I love best...what makes the lipstick...is the shimmer. It's...silvery gold. Cool and warm at the same time. Not as ordinary as gold or silver shimmer. It makes the lipstick glow.
I suppose the moment of truth--whether to repurchase or not--will come soon enough, as I wear away my VGV day after day.
Beauty Notes: NARS Fall 2005
Posted by Dain, Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:06 AM (Eastern)
Let's see... Spring '05 was After Glow (rather forgettable), Summer '05 was Day Dreamer (pretty, but not gorgeous)... NARS has returned full swing to its lush, epic glory of rich colors. This is NARS at its pigmented best. They are bold choices, which is not to the taste of some, but NARS is better (I think) in intensity rather than not. Wearing NARS is a bit like imbibing liquor—powerful, glorified, and likely to produce hangovers. If you prefer a girly drink, you are perfectly welcome to buy Stila, instead.
This collection scares me a little, but I desire it all the more for it. Here are some descriptions of its offerings... (That which has an asterisk are preexisiting products.)
Duo Eyeshadow
Blade Runner: My favorite (though, one of the shades is beyond me, I do love the green!). A rose-brown shimmer, very much like Urban Decay's Kiss, but darker and brown, with a gorgeous overlay of lighter flecks (it goes on browner than it appears, but it's quite intense). And, a wonderful shade of charcoal glowing with leaf-green/olivine luminescence, intense in pigment, but flatteringly neutral enough for anyone to wear.
Persepolis: A shimmering (almost frosty) aqua (how fond NARS is of aqua!), this time with a green tone to add warmth. A cerulean blue, softer shimmer than the aqua, with grey lurking in the depths, like a dusky veneer of cerulean shimmer.
Surabaya: Rich medium brown, flecked with gold, and a chestnut with coppery flecks. Both are quite pigmented, which I highly approve. I may not be able to wear brown eyeshadow, but pigmented eyeshadow is first and foremost the defining sign of quality.
Single Eyeshadow
*Night Star: It was neither Nymphea or Fathom, but Night Star. A translucent peachy pink with flecks of gold...
Strada: A violet with enough grey to make it a particularly vivid lavender (I suppose it somewhere between a violet and a lavender), with flecks of gold. Stronger than Night Fairy, and it will last much longer. Adore this. Want this. Who wouldn't? Especially if it's (as I would imagine) named after the Fellini classic, La Strada?
Cream Eyeshadow
Savage: Golden brown shimmer. The Platonic ideal, I guess, of a golden brown shimmer. Warm only insofar that the gold makes it warm, otherwise neutral. It is, hmm... not particularly an exciting color, like the color of light brown sugar.
Swing: A dark purple, neutral in tone, with slight shimmer. (Darker than Maracaibo, not the gentle violet haze of Lido. Perhaps Santorini (a regular eyeshadow) is a better approximation, though Santorini is more brilliant and not so neutral.)
Eyeliner Pencil
Manon: A brilliant, hectic ultraviolet... a bold stroke for the gal who wants to make her blue eyes bluer, her green eyes greener, her brown eyes more lustrous. No shimmer.
*Bamako: A brownish plum, no shimmer.
Lip Gloss
Positano: I am afraid that this was not available for my perusal, so I can only give the description offered by the NARS site: "cinnamon rose".
*Chihuahua: A milky peachy-pinky nude, no shimmer.
Lip Lacquer
Diablo: Heh. It makes me think of the computer game. It looks a burnt red in the pot (no shimmer), but applies pinkish red, and should thereby be flattering to all. If you were a fan of the now defunct Tiffany Lip Lacquer, this is a suitable alternative, albeit less brown.
Lipstick
First Bite: Despite what it appears to be on the NARS website, this is fairly demure. Not as "auburn", but a pink-brown with russet tones, almost like the pink-brown-est copper in the world. It is the color of a blush under freckles, with modest shimmer.
*Viva Las Vegas: A cool, classy, comforting peachy-champagne taupe, shimmery and sheer. A color one woman once described as, "the lipstick I would want to go down on a plane in".
Labels: beauty notes, nars, nars collections
Beauty Notes: Surfeit
Posted by Dain, Friday, August 05, 2005 11:26 PM (Eastern)
Today was a day for treating me, after a long week of teaching, which is not over yet, so I ate at Tango (an Argentian restaurant off Mass. Ave in Arlington, wonderful stuff! I return again and again, it is so good.), the Milanesa de Bife (not sure if I spelled that correctly, as I do not know Spanish) with butternut squash on the side. Lovely. A perfect meal unto itself, with a glass of red wine. That, and copious amounts of coffee. And now I'm going to treat myself to four hours of the wonderful, albeit not quite dead accurate, BBC presentation of Gormenghast.
I self-indulged in other ways, too. I have, in my grubby possession, not one new Eye Kohl, but three. Tarnish, Prunella, and Teddy. A green-smoked black, a lush dusky violet (perhaps the eyeliner equivalent of The Maltese Falcon), and a rich chestnut, glinting with copper. Respectively. Just to add to my collection of... err... one Eye Kohl, the infamous Powersurge (perhaps a testimony to the brilliance and versatility of the bronze-gold of Powersurge, that I've seen no need for other eye pencils). Well, I could have done worse; I could have bought Blooz, too. I am—how shall I term it?—in an eyeliner mood. Washes should be subtle (though I'm hankering after NARS Strada), all the better to befit the intelligent intensity of rich eyeliner. If you're wondering what I recommend for fall, it is that. Eyeliner luxe as velvet, with the softest of washes, minimal dusty blush, and real lipstick, not the halfwit approximation with sheers. Though, I should add: eyeliner, in a shade other than black, is only the most intelligent of makeups with matte skin, for it is most bimbo-ish of them all, with the oily sheen of the drunk, so keep a compact handy.
I also nabbed September's Lucky, and nice fat issue bursting with ideas. And Neal Stephenson's Confusion, which is perhaps less frivolous.
And I saw the NARS fall line, so I'll be writing up a report very soon!
Labels: beauty notes, hauling, mac cosmetics
Help wanted...
Posted by Dain, Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:40 PM (Eastern)
Well, as the signs say. We're sending out a general call for guest bloggers for the Fashion and Beauty blog. We would like to get as many diverse voices out there as we can, so all sorts of applications are welcome! We don't have anything fixed and specific in mind, either in terms of content or scheduling, as Blogger is a flexible medium. Those who are interested (those who would like to blog on topics beauty and topics fashion) should contact me at dain.choi@gmail.com so we can review your application!
Labels: administrative
The Makeup Artist: Pat McGrath
Posted by Dain, Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:30 AM (Eastern)
I know little about Pat McGrath herself, which is surprising, given the extent of her influence, except that she has an exuberant personality that never fails. Otherwise, my knowledge of her is limited to the work she has done, and her favored products. Which is fine for our purpose, as we're interested in the technique, and not the life story. Indeed, I find it postively remarkable that McGrath intrudes so little on the social consciousness, as Bobbi Brown or Kevyn Aucoin have. Brown and Aucoin sport themselves as celebrities (which is not to say that they are/were without humility), but McGrath is first and foremost a professional, and whatever celebrity accrues is incidental to her work. I find this singularly refreshing. Pat McGrath works, for designers of the highest degree, and glossy magazines of the highest degree, as the mastermind behind Giorgio Armani's makeup line (and she's not too proud to work for Cover Girl, either, starting this July).The woman is a genius, frankly. Kevyn Aucoin's work is nothing compared the magic that McGrath seems to revisit upon us, again and again and again. She is, of course, capable of a flawless creative style, particularly for Galliano, but her trademark is a clean, equally flawless face, apparently without any makeup. It is for this that McGrath yields such influence, not just in the spreads of Vogue, but in the very products that we mortal women buy and use. For someone without her own product line (though the Giorgio Armani line is really her doing) or her own books, it really is quite remarkable, given that she remains, for the most part, in the high heaven of her high-profile gigs.
McGrath's legacy is profound. If Bobbi Brown set the last decade of the 20th century, then McGrath sets the tone for the first decade of the 21st. It is she who made the look of luminescent, healthy skin so popular—to make skin just glow, as if lit from within. A task, surely, aided and abetted by the teenage models who compose her usual canvas. To achieve the look, two innovations had to occur: sheer, and silkiness of texture (which translates into blendability).
You may scoff, but only think back to a mere five or six years ago. Drugstore eyeshadows were rough and choppy, and department-store offerings were little better. Now, even Revlon's eyeshadows are silky smooth—all the better to blend, blend, blend with ease, into a sheer veil of pigment that enhances, rather than obscures the skin. Six years ago, only Dior could marshall eyeshadows of such finesse (yes, even MAC and NARS and Stila). McGrath buys MAC's Face & Body Foundation and Laura Mercier's Moisturizing Foundation by the trunkful (at least, she did before the Giorgio Armani gig), both of which are light, and above all, natural looking. All in all, it comes as no surprise that the foundation she developed for Giorgio Armani was equally natural in finish, smooth in texture, and, rather, on the sheer side. Nowadays, foundations are born with luxe textures and natural finishes, even in the drugstore (if only they would extend the favor to concealers!), but only a few years ago, we would have thought nothing of using a full-coverage foundation, just as fifteen years ago, we would have thought nothing of using pink foundations. It seems to make sense, now, just a veil of foundation, like a glorified tinted moisturizer, to smooth over flaws without hiding one's skin. Or sheer lipsticks—which is a trend with more than a few sources, not just McGrath—six years ago, they were simply an afterthought. They were incidental to a main offering of lipsticks, usually a full-coverage cream lipstick (think MAC, or Bobbi Brown). Sheer lipsticks were merely regular lipsticks with less pigment (even Laura Mercier's Lips line). "Well, obviously!" you say. Ah, but now, we have whole lipstick lines devoted to the sheer concept, from YSL's Rouge Pure Shine to MAC Lustre to Maybelline Wet Shine; that is, they are all sheer by default, and instead of mere watered-down versions of more pigmented lipsticks, they are complex in their own right, and usually with a moisturizing, glossy finish. All I know is, MAC Lustre Lipsticks are a far cry from MAC Sheer Lipsticks. Blush, too, has taken a turn for silky textures and sheer pigments—McGrath's favorite is a cheek gel (not available in the US), but blushes have certainly turned from dry and chalky to silky smooth (MAC, which is always cutting edge, has an excellent example).
With a light hand, and less pigment, the quality of the product trebles in importance. They must be easy to blend (just think of the silky texture of Giorgio Armani eyeshadows, and compare it to Bobbi Brown's original shadows), not chalky. If they are not, then sheerness matters little. This means any number of improvements: pigments should be finely milled (instead of coarse), and the texture must be like silk, for which the lightweight-silicone technology is of great use. Now, they are used in everything from eyeshadows to hair conditioner to face creams to mascara. In skin care and hair care, silicones can mask the absence of quality emollients, and thereby functions as "fillers" (a practice I deplore), but in makeup, it is a boon. Colors, too, must now be selected with care, though this is of a lesser priority. When you use less product, the colors should be spot on, but the fact that they're sheer means that companies can be lazy about it, if they like. Silkiness of texture, at the least, is a necessary consequence of sheerness, and fortunately, the technology was there to meet demand.
This trend, of course, spread as rapidly and profoundly as it did, not necessarily because it looked better than past looks, but because it was the smarter way to apply makeup, while simultaneously giving women the impression of luxury. Sheer hides flaws in technique—it is much like how light, sheer nailpolish lasts longer in pragmatic terms because it is less likely to show evidence of chipping. A sheer lipstick, in a natural rose, like MAC's Sophisto (a Lustre, no less), is as easy to apply as lip balm. Compare that to the ritual of applying an intense, dark, matte red, like NARS Scarlett Empress. It can be swiped on, but only if one is particularly sure-handed. The lips must be smooth and moisturized, not flakey and dry, lest application be uneven, but not too moisturized, or the lipstick will smear. The use of lipliner and a lipbrush aids in one's quest for precision. After the first coat, blot, and then apply the second coat (layering ensures evenness and makes lipstick last). Go astray, and you have a smear of staining your skin. And, if that weren't enough, one must be careful not to wear out the lipstick, and constant check ups and minimal eating and drinking (and absolutely no kissing!) are required. How much easier, then, to do as Pat McGrath once suggested in Elle,
- "At Dolce, we used colors just like these [McGrath was referring to a couple of Versace lipsticks, "a turbo-charged cranberry... and a rich, burnt copper"], and literally just went 'dot, dot, dot, dot,'" she says, lightly dabbing her upper lip with alternating shades. Amateurs might have trouble with a "dot job" using such dark shades, I point out. She cuts me off mid-dab: "Just blot, darling. Work from the inside out, really sheerly. It's very sexual, you know?" After dot-dot-dotting my own lips to sheer, semi-professional perfection—no liner, no lip brush—I'm sold. (Sarah Brown, Elle.)
Sheer also allows women to explore broader color horizons, freeing them from the tyranny of neutrals from the Bobbi-Brown era (though I'm kind of wanting them back, myself). Pinks, peaches, greens, blues, purples, corals—they are all free to proliferate. No longer is brown the reigning queen, not when the aggression of brights is made friendly through sheers.
Of course, McGrath isn't a strict advocate of sheer, natural makeup, per se. Nor is she adverse to strong makeup, her runway work is more than enough testimony to that. When asked, in Mode, what her desert-island essential would be, McGrath replied, "Oh, that's easy. Black liquid eyeliner. It just makes you look instantly better." (Jacqui Stafford, Mode, March 2001.) Black liquid liner is bold, and requires the most precision of all! (To this day, I still can't manage it.) But that is still part of the signature McGrath look. Although she loves a rich, plummy lip, it functions, like the black eyeliner (she prefers Precriptives Softlining Pencil in Jet, as far as pencils go), as punctuation. Emphasis. McGrath is not a sculptural makeup artist, as Kevyn Aucoin was, and, to some extent, Bobbi Brown is (particularly with eyeshadow). Instead, she brings a sense of light to the face, and strong makeup is like the text in the 'tween of negative space, which is by far the dominating element in her faces (much like the Imagist poetry of Exra Pound, e.e. cummings, William Carlos Williams, Marianne Moore, and H.D.). It is a combination of diffuse illumination and flawless, bold precision that makes McGrath truly a master of makeup.
And some final notes: "Negative space", of course, is not the absence of makeup, and McGrath's tradmark glow requires the deft application of liquid highlighters (Giorgio Armani's Fluid Sheers, of course, which also function as blushes and bronzers, but before she used Clinique's Zero Base). She has a penchant for rose-scented skincare, particularly Lancôme, as well as Dr. Hauschka's Rose Day Cream. When asked for her best beauty advice, she responds, "Cleansing, toning, and moisturizing is the most important thing you can do for your skin, as there's no point in trying to cover up a bad complexion. A good skincare regimen is absolutely vital." (Mode) This is old-fashioned advice, but I don't think too many celebrity makeup artists would name this first on their list. And she has a distinct fondness for Burt's Beeswax Lip Balm, in the tin.
Image courtesy of www.style.com, McGrath is working on Karen Elson backstage at Anna Sui in Spring 2001. (True to her word, many of the pictures show her "dabbing" on lipstick with her finger.) Quotations from an old articles clipped from Elle (not sure which issue) and Mode (March 2001).
Labels: pat mcgrath, the makeup artist
2 comment(s)
|
April 26, 2006 7:50 PM, queenaka said...
How can I contact Pat McGrath? October 11, 2006 3:44 PM, Kenia said...
I love Pat Mcgrath, She's my true inspiration... |
September 15, 2005 2:41 PM,
I've been wondering about Dandelion. I need something to perk up my sallow skin after long nights, and can't decide between Guerlain Les Meteorites, T. LeClerc Orchidée, and Benefit Dandelion.